In all seriousness though: is commercial quality video really expected from an "entry-level" DSLR?

House shot the season finale last year with, at the Canon seminar alot of Saturday Night Live opening is shot with it and there are other examples (of course there are always extra toys to help out ) The 5D Mark II can do a real good job. It may have some limits, but if you know them and work around them, some real nice results.

Maybe I am wrong for seeing the 5D Mark II in a different class of camera than the D7000. And the functions of the two may actually support that.

But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).

The majority of people buying a D7000 based on its price level make me think that commercial quality is not as important for this camera. I certainly didn't expect a camera of this quality at this price.

Maybe I am wrong for seeing the 5D Mark II in a different class of camera than the D7000. And the functions of the two may actually support that.

But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).

The majority of people buying a D7000 based on its price level make me think that commercial quality is not as important for this camera. I certainly didn't expect a camera of this quality at this price.

Steve

My understanding from Captain Caveman's post is that the Nikon warning/disclaimer really has nothing to do with quality, but purely with proprietary codec etc.It's also very difficult to compare prices as it relates to quality in cameras that are 2-3 years apart whether Nikon or Canon. The D7000 outshines any number of Nikon and Canon cameras at any price in some areas. In terms of low light capability the D7000 probably approaches the 5D MkII as it does the D700. the focusing system is almost certainly superior to the 5D even if not to the 7D. As the years go by we see the feature set and abilities of the more expensive cameras being incorporated into the lower end cameras, no different to any other electronic gadget. Probably House could be shot on a D7000, maybe other more complex and demanding shoots could not. Recalling that House shoot, I don't recall that the type of shooting would have exhibited good examples of say rolling shutter effect for example which might be more evident say in the D7000.For shooting stills and in terms of image quality except for the larger viewfinder I can't see many reasons to choose a 5D or even a D700 (except for very high ISO) over a D7000. Once a D800 or a 5DMkIII come out, that's going to change all over again.

Maybe I am wrong for seeing the 5D Mark II in a different class of camera than the D7000. And the functions of the two may actually support that . But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).

Jeff mentioned some things which is why it may be difficult to compare, but I get what you are saying in terms of price points etc.

The Canon 5D Mark II sprang to mind because House was rather big news at the time. The Canon 7D is closer to the price as the D7000 and was used to shoot the Tonight Show Opening

There are going to be some differences between all the cameras (using Canon as example, the newest Rebel and the 60D) in terms of how well they do video and features such as ISO or ability to control audio levels etc., but the 60D has many of the features for video that the 5D has and the 60D is under $1,000 in places. Not going to say the quality across the board of all the cameras is the same, but in many cases they could work fine.

As to what the BBC will accept one way or the other, who knows

The majority of people buying a D7000 based on its price level make me think that commercial quality is not as important for this camera. I certainly didn't expect a camera of this quality at this price.

The new dSLRs really are nice choices, and very well could be that people looking for commercial quality video may not be as important, but it is nice to know that they have been used in situations by people who have many tools available to them and chose these cameras to be used in certain circumstances to get something that they needed for broadcast. When I was at the Canon Expo, the SNL guy said it was a combination of the low light performance and also the ability to get around the city quickly to get things done. If he had a RED and time, would he used it? Dunno. But I think in all these instances if the footage was not up to a quality that could be used, it would have wound up on the cutting room floor. Hmmm, we don't really have footage going to cutting room floors any more, do we?

But my point is that the price of the D7000 puts it in a different class than a 5D Mark II or even a D700...half the class by my measure! (Lenses not included).Steve

Not so sure you could or should equate quality so directly to price Steve. All of these cameras are priced to sell into a target market - if the target market is mass then the price can be lower. There are some great spec cameras to be had for a fraction of the cost of their big brothers.

Yeah right, I've got BBC and Nat Geo knocking down my doors to provide them commercial rights to as yet to be shot underwater video by someone who's never done it before. smile.gif

You sell yourself short Jeff - granted we may have a hard time coming up with a credible story & tag line to go with that new pool video for Nat Geo. But I feel sure you are up for the challenge.

My understanding from Captain Caveman's post is that the Nikon warning/disclaimer really has nothing to do with quality, but purely with proprietary codec etc.It's also very difficult to compare prices as it relates to quality in cameras that are 2-3 years apart whether Nikon or Canon. The D7000 outshines any number of Nikon and Canon cameras at any price in some areas. In terms of low light capability the D7000 probably approaches the 5D MkII as it does the D700. the focusing system is almost certainly superior to the 5D even if not to the 7D. As the years go by we see the feature set and abilities of the more expensive cameras being incorporated into the lower end cameras, no different to any other electronic gadget. Probably House could be shot on a D7000, maybe other more complex and demanding shoots could not. Recalling that House shoot, I don't recall that the type of shooting would have exhibited good examples of say rolling shutter effect for example which might be more evident say in the D7000.For shooting stills and in terms of image quality except for the larger viewfinder I can't see many reasons to choose a 5D or even a D700 (except for very high ISO) over a D7000. Once a D800 or a 5DMkIII come out, that's going to change all over again.

That's right Jeff. Nikon uses the AVCHD codec and as such, one cannot use it as a direct distributive source. It is a complicated royalty based system for Licensees which someone tried to explain to me once but I stopped her to eat my salad.

A few things one has to think about with the D7000 video mode. The H.264 encoding uses a lower bitrate, off the top of my head, I remember it's around 700MB for 5 minutes or approx. 2.33 MB/s. Canon's bitrate is approx. 5.6MB/s. As encoding goes, the higher bitrate means a more robust picture, especially when the scene gets very busy. The D7000 video is just softer than the Canon due to the lower bitrate, which doesn't say much since the Canon resolution is pretty pedestrian. So most DPs would frown on it from a broadcast viewpoint. Further more, without manual control of shutter and ISO (at the same time), there's no way any cinematographer would touch the D7000, even if there were manual aperture lenses around. Basically, House could've been shot by D7000s if a bunch of teenagers were producing it as a web only show.

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.

Further more, without manual control of shutter and ISO (at the same time), there's no way any cinematographer would touch the D7000, even if there were manual aperture lenses around. Basically, House could've been shot by D7000s if a bunch of teenagers were producing it as a web only show.

Not saying pros would choose the camera; just as most pros would choose a 1DSMKIII or a D3S or D3x etc for still work due to a whole host of feature factors etc. And not because image quality would be discernably better then presently available amateur cameras.Just making a point that as in still work, cheaper cameras are more and more approaching the quality of higher end cameras, and that the footage or images shot start to become indistinguishable except to the most expert eyes. If shot by the same pro, I would probably have a hard time deciding which version of House was shot by a D7000 or a 5D, whereas you of course would probably be able to tell. Probably the eventual D8000 or Canon equivalent will be superior to the 5DII, so that even you could not tell. It's just the way tech goes....

That's right Jeff. Nikon uses the AVCHD codec and as such, one cannot use it as a direct distributive source. It is a complicated royalty based system for Licensees which someone tried to explain to me once but I stopped her to eat my salad.

That's right but it's not unique to this Nikon camera. The Canon 5D and 7D apparently have a very similar disclaimer.

Edit: Oops, I should learn to read. I just noticed the link above is what started this thread. I'm sorry for the redundant post. It didn't seem like it was being made clear that this is a bit of a worrisome issue for owners of all video capable DSLRs, not just the NikonD7000.